​​​​

This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report (continued from previous day's quote):

Do not allow a global buyoff. This is a safety of flight item, as engine mounts with uninspected safety devices should be. Issue an AD (Airworthiness Directive) with the appropriate urgency as determined by your unbiased FAA Engineers, removing these bolts, removing all traces of the illegal (lubricant I.D.) from the parts, checking the bolt and bushing dimensions, doing any non-destructive testing required, reinstalling the bolts with a new nut, doing the run-on torque the correct way (from the nut side), and final torquing them to the correct torque, XXX-XXX in/lbs, not the wrong torque they may have been installed with at PSD [up to XXXX-XXXX in/lbs is possible (maximum XXX in/lbs run-on torque plus XXX-XXX in/lbs, which should not have been added together, but according to shop, sometimes were)--have PSD pull completed records to see what each bolt was torqued to], installing the cotter pinbefore cutting the ends (as opposed to the way we did it at PSD), having the cotter pin inspected before the sealant is applied (as opposed to the way we did it at PSD) to more definite criteria than is in (specification I.D.) (say in AD how approximate is the required approximately (distance) around the bolt circumference), and then resealing the cotter pin. This AD should be very similar to AD 99-26-09 in your files that was issued to prevent separation of the engine from the airplane because of a (vendor I.D.) engine primary thrust link shoulder bolt defect. The noted problems (uninspected saftety devices, incorrect run-on torque addition to final torque, and bolts/nuts lubricated that shouldn’t have been) may exist on similar (part number and older engine configuration) mounts, and some aspects, especially unauthorized lubrication of bolts/nuts, could exist on any engine mount fasteners installed at PSD.

References:SB 747-71A2277, On a (engine configuration) aft engine mount bolt revision, Background section, third paragraph, "There is also evidence that lubricants were used on the threads on some of the bolts. This allows the nut to rotate and disengage from the bolt."(The bolt installation spec does state that lack of tooling access can be used as a reason to torque the head side instead, but)...unless you interpret this as "lack of the will to go to the tool room and get or order the correct tools to torque the nut," (that doesn't apply in this situation.)